The Same, Decrees, Book III. The Emperor ordered that a party should be heard who desired to prove that an amount was owing to him from the Treasury equal to that for which he himself was sued.

Paulus, Decrees, Book III. Clodius Clodianus, having made a will, afterwards appointed the same heir by another will, which was drawn up in such a way as to be of no force or effect. The appointed heir, thinking that the second will was valid, desired to enter upon the estate by virtue of it, but it was afterwards ascertained to be void. Papinianus held that he had rejected the estate granted by the former will, and could not accept it under the second. I held that he did not reject the first will, as he thought that the second was valid. It was finally decided that Clodianus died intestate.

Paulus, Decrees, Book III. A testator, whose will was not perfect, bequeathed freedom and a trust to a female slave whom he had reared. As all these bequests took effect under an intestate succession, it was asked whether the slave was manumitted by virtue of the trust. An interlocutory decree was rendered to the effect that even if the father had demanded that nothing be done ab intestato, his children, through respect for his memory, ought to have manumitted the slave to whom their father was attached. It was therefore decided that she was legally manumitted, and for this reason entitled to the benefit of the trust.

Paulus, Decrees, Book III. While it has been set forth in certain Imperial Constitutions that heirs, generally speaking, are not liable to a penalty, it has, nevertheless, been decided that if the deceased had been sued during his lifetime, his heirs will be subject to the penalty, on the principle that issue had been joined with the deceased.

The Same, Decrees, Book III. It has been decided that the sureties of magistrates, who have not promised to be liable for penalties or fines, should not be sued. 1Petronius Thallus and other persons became sureties for Aurelius Romulus, a farmer of the revenue, for the sum of a hundred aurei annually. The Treasury seized the property of Romulus as having a claim upon it, and sued the sureties for both principal and interest, which they refused to pay. The obligation of the sureties having been read, and they having bound themselves only for a hundred aurei every year, and not for the entire amount of the lease, it was decided that they were not liable for the interest, but that everything which had been collected from the property of Romulus should first be credited upon the interest, and the balance upon the principal; and if there was any deficit, recourse should be had to the sureties, just as in the case of the sale of pledges by a creditor. 2Sureties cannot be sued when the principal debtor has been released by a compromise.

Paulus, Decisions, Book III. A husband, as the heir of his wife, brought suit against Surus for money which he alleged the deceased had deposited with him during his absence, and, in proof of it, he produced a single witness, the son of his freedman. He demanded before the Agent of the Treasury that a certain female slave should be put to torture. Surus denied that he had received the money, and stated that the testimony of one man should not be admitted; and that it was not customary to begin proceedings with torture, even though the female slave belonged to another. The Agent of the Treasury caused the female slave to be tortured. The Emperor decided, on appeal, that torture had been unlawfully inflicted, and that the testimony of one witness should not be believed, and therefore that the appeal had been properly taken.

Paulus, Decrees, Book III. It was decided that Metrodorus, for having knowingly harbored a fleeing enemy, should be deported to an island; and that Philoctetis, who was aware that he was concealed, and kept the fact secret for a long time, should be relegated to an island.

The Same, Decrees, Book III. Valerius Patronus, Imperial Procurator, adjudged to Flavius Stalticius certain lands at a fixed price. The property was afterwards offered at an auction, and the same Stalticius purchased it, and was placed in full possession of the property. A question arose with reference to the crops gathered in the meantime. Patronus asserted that they belonged to the Treasury. And if they were gathered in the interim between the first sale at auction and the following adjudication, it is evident that they would belong to the vendor; for it is ordinarily said that when the adjudication is made within a certain time, then a better condition is secured. We should not experience any difficulty, for the reason that the person to whom the land had first been adjudged was the same. But as the two adjudications had been made before the vintage, this opinion was not adhered to, and it was decided that the crops belonged to the purchaser. Papinianus and Messius introduced a new decision on the ground that as the lands were leased to a tenant, it was unjust that he should be deprived of all the crops; but they held that he had a right to gather them, and that the purchaser should receive the rent for that year, for fear that the Treasury could be held liable by the tenant, as he had not been permitted the enjoyment of his lease, just as if this had been agreed upon at the time of the sale. It was also decided, in accordance with their opinion, that if the land had been cultivated by the owner, the purchaser would be entitled to all the crops, but as it was leased by the tenant, the purchaser should receive the rent. Having been asked by Tryphoninus what opinion they would hold with reference to certain dried fruits which had been formerly gathered on the land, they answered that if, after the decision had been rendered, the day for the payment of the rent had not yet arrived, the purchaser would also be entitled to them.